IPhone MMS was rolled out to AT&T customers in the U.S. on Friday, though there were some minor problems, as can be seen here. (Source: CNET)

The excitement of the iPhone finally getting multimedia messaging, is overshadowed by the Google Voice drama

After a long wait AT&T finally rolled
out support for the multimedia messaging service (MMS) protocol.
This means that iPhones can at last send pictures, video, and audio
recordings like users of other smartphones.

IPhones
have actually had MMS support built in since June when the iPhone
OS v3.0 was released. AT&T, however, kept the
functionality disabled for fear it would overload and break its
network. Meanwhile, AT&T upgraded much of its network and
built extra capacity to handle the service.

On
September 22, early last week, it sent
a free SMS text message to inform its customers that it would be
rolling out the update on Friday. The message read, "AT&T
Free Msg: Picture & video messaging (MMS) will be available for
iPhone on 9/25. While we prepare your account for MMS
capability, the current 'view my message' experience will be turned
off but your ability to send and receive text messages will not be
affected."

Users began receiving the update when they
synced their phones with iTunes on Friday. The update wasn't
without its
problems -- most of which appear to be software/firmware
related. Some users found that their attempts to send MMS
failed. Apple and AT&T suggested users first try to reset
their networks settings. A more extreme fix involves selecting
your iPhone's settings in iTunes and choosing "General >
Reset All Settings > enter your pin if prompted". That
fix appears to get MMS working, but you may have to reenter your
Passcode, Wi-Fi passwords. You may also lose your VPN
connections and remembered Wi-Fi networks. A perk, though, is
that your apps are arranged alphabetically, something previously not
easily done.

While the MMS was the big news for iPhone users
this week, a battle
between AT&T and Google somewhat stole the show away from
it. Following the rejection
of the Google Voice app several weeks ago, which allowed cheap
long distance calling and free SMS messaging, Apple initially took
the blame for the rejection when the Federal Communications
Commission launched an inquiry. Apple said it was still working
with Google, but disliked that the app changed and replaced parts of
its interface, which might confuse its customers.

Now
AT&T has issued a second response to the FCC, attacking Google
and taking a very different bent than Apple's conciliatory tone.
AT&T claims that Google Voice violates common carrier laws, by
blocking customers' access to numbers on carriers that charge higher
interconnect fees (such as some rural carriers). The practice
is prohibited for traditional telephone carriers, but its unclear
whether Google Voice would have to abide by the ban as well -- though
AT&T is adamant that it must.

AT&T's scathingly
attacked Google in the letter, saying the company's "noisome"
calls for net
neutrality were a bunch of hot air. It said Google's
blocking represents an "intellectual contradiction" as it
argues that the company is discriminating against access to certain
data.

Google quickly fired back with a blog
defending this practice. It says as the service is free,
web-based, invite only, and not designed as a replacement to
traditional services, it does not believe it is subject to these
laws.

It goes on to attack rural carriers, quoting AT&T
and other telecoms as saying they "establish grossly excessive
access charges under false pretenses," and "offer kickbacks
to operators of pornographic chat lines and other calling services,"
while linking to supporting sources.

Google concludes its
argument, stating, "AT&T is trying to make this about
Google's support for an open Internet, but the comparison just
doesn't fly. The FCC's open Internet principles apply only to the
behavior of broadband carriers -- not the creators of Web-based
software applications. Even though the FCC does not have jurisdiction
over how software applications function, AT&T apparently wants to
use the regulatory process to undermine Web-based competition and
innovation."

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Just want money. They Charge 60$ for 300 text messages, which is more than the average person texts. Then they tax based on local taxes (at least in my area), which are up to 10%.Google voice comes along, which virtually can allow anyone to make Wifi calls out side the carriers service, and these guys complain about a technology that was a matter of time when they decided to allow wifi functionality.

So switch services. Why do people keep b*tching about AT&Ts service but stay with it? For the ability to use the iPhone? Well that's what you get for caring more about the phone than the service it runs on.

And you can't blame AT&T for taxes. It's required by law to collect them.

And I'm completely satisfied with AT&T. Only complaint I have is bad cell service in my house, but it's not an AT&T problem as EVERYONE has crappy service in my house, and that list includes Sprint, Verizon, Metro PCS, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Nextel. And that was when Nextel was it's own company, I know it's not that way anymore.

Tmobile charges $25 for unlimited family text messages ($15 for individual). And charges $5 (not $60) for 300 text messages (individual), and $10 for 1000 text messages (individual). Yeah it sucks we have to pay anything for sending bytes of data, but T-mobile has the most flexible text messaging plans compared to any other carrier.

That may be true, but my 'local' reception issues went away when I switched from Sprint to Verizon. Now my 'local' reception like various rural hiking locations around the country, the Virgin Islands, my basement, underground at work, etc, etc all have great service now when it previously sucked with Sprint.

Many people use the iphone because it does everything. It is the arguably the best smart phone there is. If AT&T's network can't handle the device that it locked into an exclusive contract, it shouldn't be offering the service. You have it backwards, FITCamaro.

Arguably is the keyword there. I would argue it's a pretty crappy smartphone. It certainly is getting better, but still the only thing it has that my phone doesn't have is an app store. Considering their stance on the app store and what a smartphone is meant for I really would say it's the crappiest smartphone out there.

I'm actually quite sure they don't, but it's not exactly the same comparison people make with the iPhone anyway. Why do people try to justify their iPhone by saying it's the best, even though it's not, by comparing it to a Benz or some other luxury car that is for style? If you want your iPhone cause it's shiny and "pretty" then go ahead, I don't care. If you wanna sit there and tell me you got it because it's the best... well you can shove your arrogant head up your ass.

For me it's simply because of why people justify it. As I said, if you want your status symbol then go ahead and have it, but don't sit there and try to tell me that it's because it's the best phone. It's simply not true.

maybe the status symbol part of it does make it the best phone. gotta be more open minded, not everything is just battery charged features, and it is the concept people on here are having a hard time accepting.

just a thought instead of comparing BT support/mms/3g/cameras/specs/etc

Newsflash, the world is far from perfect.. So please come down from the clouds, splash some water on your face(to clean up all the feces from your head being so far up your A**), and come back to reality. There are tons and tons of companies that offer sub par services. As a consumer you are not forced to do anything, you have a choice. If this service is not up to your standards, you have the choice of choosing another. If the phone means that much to you, thats just another choice you will have to make. Either way, you always have a choice.

Because if you don't pay for a text plan, then you get charged per text. The going rate for most carriers is between $0.15 to $0.25 per text. So he's b*tching about the consequences of being a stupid customer.

Don't forget the $20 covers the whole family too; if you have 2+ iPhones on a family plan its a pretty decent deal. I know it's not "hip" to say AT&T is a decent carrier, but I have family plan with them, and the rates are pretty good (this includes unltd data/texts and a ton of minutes for a good price).

That's utterly laughable. Just about any price whatsoever for text messaging is a complete joke if you realize just how much network bandwidth text messaging consumes vs voice or data.

The data transfer required for just a 60 second phone conversation is equivalent to sending literally thousands of text messages (anywhere from 2000-10,000 depending on the quality of the voice connection and size of the text message).

And you think $20 a month for a service that amounts to less than a 60 second phone-call is pretty good?

While you're numbers are correct -- and anyone who does any significant number of text messages a month would be stupid not to choose one of these plans -- he is referring to the fact that AT&T charges 20 cents per message (sent or received) if you don't subscribe to one of the plans you mention.

Only someone incredibly stupid would pay for texting message by message if they do more than a few messages a month. (Maybe even too stupid to even operate a phone that can text -- oh, I take that back some people are stupid enough to text while driving -- they'd be dumb enough to do lots of texting and not sign up for an overall plan and pay for it by each message sent and received).

$60 for 300 texts? Man you are getting screwed. I get 2100 minuts (shared on 2 lines), unlimited texts, unlimited internet (for what my phone provides anyway), navigation and many other features, plus have an air (internet) card on the same bill and pay under $200/month with Verizon.

I can't get a cheaper plan. I can save all of $15 by cutting my minutes in half. Paying $90 a month for data alone. There really are no other options that I've found. Maybe if I switched to sprint but then I'd be stuck with sprint and they have zero bars in my house so that doesn't seem like a good option.

Pretty sure I just rigged my Verizon Palm Treo Pro phone to receive text messages via my googlevoice number and with the new functionality Google added, forward them to my Gmail inbox. The Gmail inbox pushes them to my phone and voila, free texts. Sending them for free is as simple as going to voice.google.com and selecting a contact (which are synced with Google Sync anyways). It's a tad inconvenient, but I can barely notice the difference and save myself at least $5/month if not more.

Sweden - operator halebopI don't know the English word for this kind of service but.no monthly fee, you have a inserted amount of money and can easily refill it. You have to buy your own phone (they aren't really expensive if you don't like paying a few hundred dollars for a sticker of a half eaten fruit)

These are prevalent rates on Prepaid(pay-and-use) and Postpaid(use-and-pay) phones here. On prepaid plans, refilling of Rs. 100($2.1), the usable value is about Rs. 80($1.7). On the postpaid plans, the plans start from Rs 100/month($2.1). With special schemes and plans on these, call and message rates go down even further.

There is almost NO carrier bundling of phones here. I believe only Blackberry's and some entry level phones are subsidized and put under contract.

Oh the self entitlement, I suppose its your right to totally circumvent sms/phone plan without having to pay more for your data plan.. This is not going to save money for the consumer in the long run, carriers will just switch to charging insanely high rates for data plans, which will hurt those that actually pay for phone plans. If you could only make wifi calls there would not be an issue, its the fact you can use your data plan. This is why Skype wifi only apps have been approved, the entire 'overtaking basic iphone functionality' is just a cover.

quote: which virtually can allow anyone to make Wifi calls out side the carriers service

This is completely wrong and a misconception that is making some people side with the carriers. When you use Google Voice to make a call it does NOT use voice over IP to place the call. At least with the GVoice from Cydia, it calls the number you dialed AND your phone then connects the two. The fact that this service still uses your plan's minutes, and often more since if you call another AT&T customer it's charged as an out of network call, is not an argument for the carriers. The text messaging thing though is definitely a valid argument, especially now since texts to GVoice numbers get sent to your email address.

The fact that you can receive thousands of emails with your data plan yet have to pay extra for unilmited text is completely insane.

Not quite true, outgoing calls/sms uses your google number and data/wifi (i.e you are not using your minutes/sms) while incoming must bridge through your cell number (i.e you use your minutes). I'm not sure about others, but I don't pay for incoming sms so thats a non issue (I know US carriers don't work like this, but many other places around the world do), nor do I pay for incoming phone calls as it comes with my plan(unless I'm roaming of course). So GV is very much so free for me..

I would also like to point out you can forward your GV number to other numbers than your cell. You could for example forward all your calls to your work phone. I have not tried it but you can also switch to other phones in call at any time. So if you are just getting home and you are on an incoming call using your cell minutes, you can make it ring on your landline and transfer the call. (I call this GF mode.. for those lengthy/never ending calls =D )

Incorrect. Google Voice on the iPhone requires you to enter a phone number. when you use the app to make a call it calls the target number as well as your set phone number then connects the two. It does NOT use data to do so.

TMobile should be even more pissed since the BB Google Voice app works differently. When you dial a number with the app, it makes your phone call into Google Voice and GV calls the target number then connects. If that Google Voice number to dial was a Fav 5 it's completely free.

I've played extensively with the apps on both phones and that's how they work.

imagine,the problem with ATT seeing a device that manages communication with only Internet access. ATT no longer manages the applications,application types,or what the utilization of them are- or benifits from them in a monetary manner as that of the present day cell platform. Sometimes you want to use the cell phone though. Other wise the Internet is everything it is,and nothing less. You could see how much the text on this screen would cost if it was done on the ATT cell phone challenge list. With bandwidth such as 3G available,there is not much reason you do not have the same prerequisites for devices making the interaction. As differentiated from the cell phone. Either the programing used for wireless on ATT is very bad,or there is simply an overstatement of the performing capabilities of the wireless cell phone itself on the hardware side (for example there is actually not enough processing capability in them to operate the protocals/software etc for the given bandwidth). Otherwise,cell phone is everything it is. That shows on the bill you pay. When you have Internet access on a device that performas with it in the wireless space /bandwidth. You have to ask if you are simply doing this as a priviledge to see how much money you can pay for a service that is 400% over priced. At this point ATT must be asking "what is the Internet" they would probably assume that you do not know anything about it anyway. I'll not mention the cushy relationship with Microsoft and NBC. The dice and splice of cell phones is regulated by the FCC. As well as carriers of broadcast networks. ATT is most likely wondering whom they can share fallout with considering the limitations considered by being regulated. Or the manipulation of a market without being so. Through the devices they would be only considering for carriage of wireless as their own clients. Think that when technology for wireless,and wireless Internet was thought of,it was not a fact that the cell phone would replace it through controlling devices that describe the wireless bandwidth. ATT had an early pc,and early video phone. ATT did not have anything early for Apple though. Bandwidth and processing power is nearly and only presently available. As well as the wireless spectrum to do so. Cell phone technology is severly overpriced for the performance of it compared to simply 'wireless Internet'.

I don't know what decade you're living in but just this last month I sent/received over 2400 text messages. This means that I have to pay for an unlimited messaging plan that @ $30 I don't find to be expensive, however, I do believe all carriers grossly overcharge for their services.

I wouldn't call that a perk, I'd call it a nightmare. I've got over 100 apps installed on my iTouch, positioned on different pages depending on what they are for (for instance three pages are Puzzle Games, Board/Card Games, Action Games, plus pages for Offline News/Sports Results reading, Utilities, and so on). Having everything arranged alphabetically would mean it taking ages to find what I want.

Fortunately iTunes 9 makes it much easier to re-order apps on a computer rather than having to do it on the iPhone/iTouch itself.

quote: This means that iPhones can at last send pictures, video, and audio recordings like users of other smartphones.

Should just read users of other phones, as just about any of them could send MMS even the Razr. MMS hardly justifies "smart" aspect of a phone.

Better wording would be AT&T and Apple finally catch up with phones several years old.

To clarify I have an iPhone and love it, but honestly the bragging about these "features" is laughable at best. Oooo look copy paste, mms, voice recording. Arguably they do it better, but come on these are not features and should have been there to begin with. I don't feel happy as an iPhone user rather disappointed that it took this long.

Gotta love Apple's ability to spin a failure into a feature!

"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il